���˿���

Yes, I welcome that investment. There are some benefits to being an urban-based council in that when you roll out new kerbside infrastructure you can get benefits from rerouting, which is far more challenging in a more rural community or, indeed, our island communities. It is about infrastructure investment. It is also about linking that to kerbside communications with householders over what they can and cannot recycle, which I think have dropped off the entire Scottish Government agenda, not just for Glasgow but across Scotland. That communication can help to boost the rate.

There appears to have been a vast change in approach. It would be very easy and not costly to meet the 50 per cent household recycling target, which was to be achieved by 2013. I do not think that that would have to rely on investment. I will not name the local authority that was paying a waste contractor to collect air because it no longer had enough waste in its residual bin—we want to avoid that situation. However, as a result of the uncertainty and the unclear market signal that the Scottish Government has sent about what might be required, that could easily occur, which is incredibly concerning.

There is no locus in a human rights bill coming forward to the Parliament because, as we have heard on previous occasions, an intention to introduce a bill—even if it is mentioned in the programme for government—does not mean that a bill will be introduced. Therefore, we cannot predicate any decisions on something that we have not seen and might never see during this parliamentary session.

Yes, I wish to press amendment 215.

To be fair, the Scottish Government has not set that out as a policy, but it is the fact. Let us look at plastic recycling: 2 per cent of plastics that are collected for recycling in Scotland are recycled in Scotland. One could suggest that the Scottish Government is saying that we want to export all our waste and that not accepting the suggestion is evidence of that, because only 2 per cent of plastics are recycled here. I would love to see a plastics recycling facility in Scotland, which amendment 4 would not deliver, but it would signal that that is the direction of travel. However, it is clear that that is the opposite of the Scottish Government’s policy position, which is entirely a matter for it.

In closing, I seek to withdraw amendment 4.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 124 not moved.

Amendment 100 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 191 not moved.

Amendments 101 to 103 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.

Amendment 142 moved—[Maurice Golden].

I think, conversely, that what you are talking about is changing consumer behaviour. I would suggest that, when a consumer changes their behaviour to more green-friendly practices such as reuse and repair, they are more fastidious on their recycling as well. Therefore, even though I appreciate the argument, they are actually likely to recycle more. However, in terms of behaviour change, it is worthwhile analysis.

There is a big, Scotland-wide push around food waste because if we get our participation rates up that would certainly help. I think those aspects work in tandem. For example, the Scottish Government rolled out food waste collections at the same time as rolling out a campaign called “love food, hate waste” to get people to reduce the same food waste that it was beginning to trial collecting. Fife, and Perth and Kinross, did that back in 2005. I appreciate that the two aspects might appear to compete, but I think that they are complementary in boosting recycling rates. Also, in the context of my amendment 15, we are talking about a target of only 50 per cent. To give some idea of where we are, the national household recycling average is 43.4 per cent, so we are talking about a relatively small increase, compared with where we have come from.

I move amendment 15.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I am struggling to understand the minister’s position because, if we park amendment 17, my amendments represent the minister’s own targets. The Scottish Government has set those targets and done due diligence on them. All that my amendments would do is give the Government 12 years extra to meet its own targets. It would help if the committee could hear whether the Scottish Government did not know what it was doing when it set the targets or whether it has no confidence in meeting targets a decade or more after they were set.

The single amendment in this group is intended to ensure that each public body must take reasonable steps to prevent human rights harm and to ensure environmental due diligence with regard to the body’s operations, products and services, and, in particular, public procurement. I am aware that many public bodies will already be looking at their supply chains and procurement practices, but I feel that it is important to recognise that area and to ensure, via legislation, that every public body adheres to those standards. I hope that the committee believes that we have a responsibility to consider how we consume and procure and that it will therefore be in a position to support the amendment.

I move amendment 215.

I found that statement from the minister utterly bizarre. I am not sure what the Scottish Government’s policy is on the targets that it has set for itself. For the avoidance of doubt, having local authority targets does not preclude national targets being set. In fact, if we had what the Scottish Government previously said it would have, which is national targets, we might well want some local authority targets to be set, because they would help in meeting the national targets. The Scottish Government’s own targets, which presumably resulted from extensive detailed analysis, appear to have now been suddenly thrown in a big landfill bin, which is quite shocking.

The worry around all of this is that, if a local authority is looking at investment and making contracts, it will now find that its direction of travel—which has been very obvious as the recycling rate that local authorities are expected to make—is going to be the result of a negotiation process. Lots of local authorities that have invested significant amounts, such as Renfrewshire and Scottish Borders, could be left hung out to dry as a result of this new process. The uncertainty around it is quite shocking for local authorities across Scotland, because who knows what that negotiated outcome will be? Will there be a first-mover advantage for local authorities that have invested heavily, such as Aberdeenshire Council, or will councils that have taken their eye off the ball in terms of kerbside roll-outs get a big win because they will get extra funding now? I do not know. I do not think that anyone knows.

One thing that we do know is that it is incredibly unclear, and the Scottish Government seems to be disowning the targets that it has set. That is what we have established today.